User talk:LittleReddog

Why did you delete the page John Kimble? I would like your reasoning on this? Thanks
A template has been added to the article Why did you delete the page John Kimble? I would like your reasoning on this? Thanks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Captain  panda  01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi LittleReddog,

If you go to you will find the reasons why John Kimble was deleted. It appears that the consensus was that he is not a notable candidate. If you disagree you can always submit it to Deletion Review. It really is better to go that route rather than create an article in protest, the way you did with Why did you delete the page John Kimble. Good luck.--Slp1 01:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page John Kimble? I would like your reasoning on this? Thanks
A template has been added to the article Why did you delete the page John Kimble? I would like your reasoning on this? Thanks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Captain  panda  02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If this page is deleted again, please do not recreate it. It is the clear consensus of the community that the subject of this article is not notable enough for inclusion. Captain   panda  02:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have recently recreated or reposted material which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review.  --Calton | Talk 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV
''He should have not been removed early because maybe someone would have objected. It almost seems racial or politically motivated when other losing candidates are still on Wikipedia''

Two points:


 * Have a read of this. The discussion is about this article and this subject, not any others.


 * If what you say is true, please provide a list of the other losing candidates undeserving of an article, and we can get cracking on them: there are 2 million articles on Wikipedia, and stuff gets overlooked.

Oh, and trying to play the race card? Almost never effective, almost always counter-productive. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)